SHRIJAY AGRO PVT. LTD. ,SATARA V. ITO, WARD-2,SATARA, SATARA

ITA 41/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shrijay Agro Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the Additional/JCIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Faridabad, concerning the assessment year 2022-2023. The primary issues in the appeal included the dismissal of the initial appeal on technical grounds due to a typographical error in Form 35, and the confirmation of long-term capital gains from the sale of land, among others. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not address the merits of the case due to the error in the form and directed a re-examination of the case on its substantive merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472607 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 250; 143(1); 50C

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"बी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.41/PUN/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Shrijay Agro Private Limited, Plot No. 6, Uttekar Nagar, Sardar Bazar, Satara-415001 Maharashtra PAN-AANCS1143E Vs ITO, Ward-2, Satara Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai, Additional CIT DR Date of hearing : 05.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.04.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Additional/JCIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Faridabad u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, dated 13.12.2024 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal on technical ground without appreciating that appeal has been correctly filed and there was typographical mistake in Form 35 that ought to have been ignored. The appeal ought to have been decided on merits. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming long term capital gains from sale of land at Rs. 4,81,43,302/- as against Rs. 10089526/- as computed by the appellant. 3. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action under the provisions of Section 50C and adopting the sale consideration on the basis of stamp duty valuation when the valuation report of the DVO has been received and furnished before him. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of not allowing cost of improvement as claimed by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 2 ITA No.41/PUN/2025 3. At the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. JCIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal only on the ground of a typographical error committed in Form 35 and thus prayed for providing one more opportunity to go before the First Apellant Authority (FAA) On the other hand Ld. DR did not oppose the request. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee which is a Private Limited Company has passed through scrutiny Proceedings for A.Y. 2022-23 and assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act framed on 18.03.2024 assessing Income at Rs. 4,81,23,980/- arrived at after making addition of Rs. 3,80,53,780/- to the returned income of Rs. 1,00,70,200/- The assessee in order to challenge the additions made by Ld. AO filed an appeal before the First Appellant Authority (FAA) but in Form No. 35 apart from mentioning all necessary details correctly but in column No.2(A) which requires the details of the section and sub-section of the Income Tax Act under which the order passed has been appealed before First Appellant Authority (FAA), the assessee inadvertently mentioned section 143(1) in place of section 143(3) of the Act. We further notice that Ld. First Appellant Authority (FAA) did not deal with the merits of the case and directed the assessee to reapply the appeal with correct particulars. 5. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case we find that Ld. First Appellant Authority (FAA) has not dealt with the merits of the case solely on account of some technical reasons present in the NFAC system. However in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties we direct the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC to admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication and deal with the merits of the case and decide in accordance with law for which a fair and reasonable opportunity shall be 3 ITA No.41/PUN/2025 provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the correct Form 35 on the first date of hearing and plead on merits of the case. 6. In result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 04th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 04th April, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"बी\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "